Example: Robber barons of the 1800s (there are entire books on why this was bad)

And so forth?

I mean, is there an underlying assumption that through enough deregulation, we will eventually reach everyone's altruism? How are these past failures of laissez-faire rationalized in the modern movement?

Ok, look at the massive private road network that already exists in America: Logging roads. This thing works for what it is, but any time two companies come together (two different roads meet), they need to negotiate how to handle that intersection. At the scale of the logging roads, it's a massive clusterfuck of locked gates. At the scale of AMERICA, road companies would be so bogged down with negotiating agreements with other road companies that they'd need to spin that responsibility off to a third party. Hmmm...an entity that oversees the construction of roads and how they all interact, but doesn't actually build them...FUCK. Libertarians have just re-invented government the long way around.

Then they should have made the proper legal arrangements beforehand. Which exist and are not difficult to engage. "Bruh"

Except where it's legally impossible for them to make end-of-life decisions

I don't own a bakery, but that's exactly what happened to Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Actually, a reporter asked them if they'd cater a gay wedding. They don't even do weddings, but they said they wouldn't. It's such a literal non-issue that it's hilarious you are waving it as a battle flag.

and...you know what, this is pointless. Have a nice life. You'll certainly enjoy it more than those in classes less privileged than yours.

Marriage isn't a right. It's a categorical method of distributing privileges. Those same privileges are available without marriage.

And when someone's partner is in the hospital or dies? Ok, bruh.

Nobody should have a "right", or a privilege, of forcing others to associate with them

Literally no one is saying that.

People are legislating that it's illegal to do, so the only response possible to to legislate removing that restriction. Discrimination is only codified when it's barred. The ability of people and businesses to discriminate in who they associate with is the default. So if your statement was accurate, you would be against the legal codification of barring discrimination.

This is just full of problems.

No, I don't. I speak like a person who believes freedom is more important than forcing myself on people

Who's forcing themselves on you? Like, seriously, in your day-to-day life, how often do you come home and go, "Man! Them gays was all over me! And there is legally not a damn thing I can do about it." It's imaginary persecution.

Nobody deserves special rights just because they have bad feelz about themselves.

This is how I know that you genuinely don't get it. I hope one day you do.

Well, marriage for one. Anyway, Indiana was trying to legally codify business's ability to discriminate against them strictly based on sexuality. Look, if somebody wants to run "Billy Bob's Ultimate Straight Wing House" they are free to do so, let's just not legislate that that's a cool thing to do. Once you legislate it, you can get into all sorts of messy things with products and services that are way more important than food.

Nobody thought it was icky to serve pizza to gays. A reporter went out of her way to ask a pizza place if they would service a gay wedding. They said no. No wedding, gay or straight, as ever catered pizza from them before.

I mean, whatever. That discussion touched off Rubio's foot-in-mouth.

You're trying to legislate association.

O Rly? I had no idea I was a legislator. I, and pretty much everyone else that disapproves of the Indiana law, are just opposed to legally codifying discrimination. There's no movement to force rednecks serve pizza to gays or whatever (although doing so voluntarily may help them realize that gays are just people, too).

Please don't get offended, but you speak like a person that has never experienced/doesn't understand the effects of discrimination. Try to understand that there are people in the world that are consistently shit on just because of who they are, and simply saying "Hey you got as much rights as everybody else" doesn't really do much for the disenfranchised. Then you've got things like this dogwhistle bigotry ("wrapped in a flag, carrying a bible") legislation in Indiana. There are people with a much more steep path forward in life, let's not put them down any more than we have already.

I don't think a person needs to wear any sort of glasses to think that gays ought to have the same rights as everybody else.

I mean, think about it. The quote Rubio threw out was sparked by Indiana trying to legally codify discrimination against gays in their state. People are acting like it was the other way around, and somebody was trying to legally force people that think gays are icky to serve pizza to gays.

It really comes down to "Hey, let's not straight-up legislate discrimination," and you'd think the small-government types could get along with that.

Hilarious: look at the opinions that get up/down voted on reddit (or even this thread). Either you've got a massive vote-botnet, or you're actually the popularly opined. Anyway, this Libertarian "I'm a privileged person, why doesn't everyone else just be privileged?" bullshit needs to end.

Ok, follow up since I think you mentioned the concept of discrimination via the "I don't like your face; no heating oil for you" line. I'm with you that discrimination is bad. However, I've heard a lot of Libertarians say that companies should be free to discriminate against customers if they chose. What's your take? Should companies be allow to discriminate against certain customers based on age/race/religion/gender/sexuality/whatever?

Ah, thanks for the well-written reply. I think I brought Walmart into the discussion because many feel that their business practices drive down wages and they drive out local businesses. Applied to a larger scale, that could be bad for the working class in America...especially at this weird crossroads between globalization and the shift to technology/service jobs. Is there a Libertarian answer for this type of problem? Or is it not a problem? What's your take, is what I'm asking :-)

Yeah, sorry about being unclear. I suppose a question that I should first ask is what exactly is the role of government in the Libertarian ideal? Then it would probably be more prudent to ask about the roles of corporations.

Thanks for the reply. I think you're spot-on about the economic impacts. What I was trying to get at (and wasn't clear about, my bad) was the working conditions in that era. They are widely documented as being abysmal although people were definitely free to go work elsewhere. Can that sort of thing be avoided without government regulation?

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Can you tell me how the Libertarian school of thought deals with things that lead to heavier government regulation in business such as the "robber barons" of the 1800s?